Reply With Quotenot one mention of the trillion dollar war... odd.
Spending money that they don't have once again! When are people going to realize that the elected officals of both parties in Washington, DC are self serving bureaucrats? The two party system is nothing but a rubber stamp to steal from their constituents.
As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues by Rep. Ron Paul
August 6, 2007
These last few weeks the House has been in a rush to pass spending bills before August recess. In fact, visitors walking the hallways of Congress become immediately struck by the apparent spending battle between the “conservative Democrats” of the so-called “Blue Dog Coalition,” and the Republican Study Committee, or RSC, generally representing the more conservative bloc of Republican House members. Members of each of these groups place large posters on easels outside their offices. The purpose behind this seems clear, to point the finger at the opposite party for the current budget mess that continues to threaten America’s future.
When Republicans had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, very little was done to stem the tide of federal spending. In fact, spending increased every year over the past decade. New programs such as “No Child Left Behind,” and entitlements like the Prescription Drug Benefit, were added at great cost to federal taxpayers.
During this period, the Blue Dogs continued to make the rhetorical point of government financial misdeeds. Now that Democrats control the House, the RSC is highlighting the increases in spending and debt that will occur based on bills passed this year by the new majority.
While both sides continue attempting to score political points, the country goes further and further into debt, because neither side is really willing to make the tough decisions necessary to halt the run away train of federal spending. Several Republicans go to the House floor with amendments to stop spending directed by Congress, often seeking to cut projects that total $100,000 or less. While it is true that hundreds of thousands can and do add up, the same people who argue for these spending cuts think nothing of spending billions more in Iraq. At the same time, basically every spending bill that comes to the House Floor would have the majority spend more, even over and above the increases requested by the Administration.
Current arguments over spending really have no connection to the idea of the overall reduction in the size and scope of government. The Democrats who argue that tax cuts are a form of spending are just as misleading as the Republicans who say they can make a serious dent by changing congressionally directed spending into administration directed spending.
The federal government has a spending problem. Each year our current accounts balance gets worse and worse, and the amount of foreign held government debt has skyrocketed. Both Republicans and Democrats; conservatives, liberals and moderates, indeed nearly every single-member of the Washington political establishment, is addicted to one form of federal spending or another.
Only when the American people absolutely demand that the spending spree be stopped, will their representatives in Washington stop using this issue as a political football to score public relations points, and finally face-up to the fact that we are a nation in a very precarious financial position, which demands real spending cuts in order to avoid bankrupting our next generation.
not one mention of the trillion dollar war... odd.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
..."the same people who argue for these spending cuts think nothing of spending billions more in Iraq."
well i was just commenting that, being ron paul, i thought he would have spent more time talking the incredible money pit that the iraq war is. interesting article though. unlike most republicans he doesn't resort to the baseless assertion that somehow 8 months of democratic control of congress is responsible for the whole mess.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
Originally Posted by raoul duke
I had no ulterior motive for posting other than thinking you may have missed it. Your point is valid though. He talks about 100k here and a 100k there when there's a billion a month being spent on a war he himself is against.
Maybe he didn't want to be known strictly as an anti-Iraq war candidate (and wants to be known as a fiscal conservative) so he walked softly around it?
"several"
the funny thing is, he has the full potential to become a howard dean-like candidate (by that i mean an insurgent, though ideologically they quite a few things in common). i'm not his biggest fan and probably wouldn't vote for him, but he is the only republican candidate that sounds like he lives on planet earth and acknowledges that not all realities can be dictated or framed by dogmatic ideology. i would like to fair and subjective about the rest of that field, but man what a bunch of knuckledraggers, seriously.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
I just wish you could pick and choose one or two ideas from all of them and create your own candidate.
I thought I liked Richardson from the Dem side but then his first act as a candidate was to pander to the hispanics (it would be like hillary announcing her candidacy to NOW, Obama to the NAACP, Mitt at a Hardware Store...).
I don't know what to do, I don't "like" anyone from either side. I just don't want a polarizing Pres.
Yes, they argue against the war but still provide the funding. So what does that tell you!
It tells me that they are all playing different parts in the puppet show until their master picks which one will be the star based on the applause of those few in the first few front rows.
You can add he is not only the Republican candidate that sounds like he lives on the planet earth but also the only presidential candidate that sounds like he lives on the planet earth. There are some real left wing nuts running for president under the Democrat banner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions